Man accused by same PS but wrongly named or later acquitted: HC calls DGP

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has sought the personal presence of the UP director general of police (DGP) and the senior superintendent of police (SSP), Muzaffarnagar, in the bail plea of a man who was accused in 49 narcotics cases in last 23 years but was either later acquitted or his name was expunged from the case. The DGP and the SSP have been asked to be present on December 13, the next date of hearing in the case.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order on the bail application of one Gaurav alias Gaura of Muzaffarnagar.

According to the applicant, the police of Khatauli police station of Muzaffarnagar are registering false and frivolous cases against him and in this regard a complaint was earlier made by the applicant to the Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. The Commission had then, in the order dated June 5, 2007, ordered the additional director general of police, Allahabad, to compensate the applicant and compensation to the tune of Rs 10,000 was awarded to the applicant and his brother, Omi.

The court after going through the details of previous cases, related to narcotics registered against the applicant, observed, “Perusal of the aforesaid history chart shows that there is history of 49 cases to the credit of the applicant and pertains to one and same police station i.e. Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, wherein out of 49 cases shown above the applicant has been acquitted in 11 cases; and in nine cases notices were withdrawn; in two cases the name of the applicant has wrongly been mentioned; in one case under National Security Act, the proceedings were quashed; and in 21 cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail; and in one case anticipatory bail has been granted.

“This Court fails to understand the working of the police of the police station concerned that how the cases said to have been wrongly imposed on a person... repeatedly... Such callous action cannot be imagined from the officers of the disciplined force,” the court observed.

The court fixed December 13 as the next date of hearing, in the case.